RadioFreeLiberal.com

In these parts, the unionized Fred Meyer stores are beating the shit out of all the other grocery stores.


Makes me wonder how Safeway and Albertsons (and Haggens) continue to stay in business.

I can attest to Winco's prices vs Walmart. Winco is FAR cheaper.

_________________
E pluribus unum
In God We Trust

Safeway and Albertsons are both union stores. I don't know what a Haggens store is.

Albertsons didn't stay in business, in 2006 they went through bankruptcy. In most of California many of the Albertsons stores had been Luckys stores until they went through bankruptcy years before and Albertsons bought them out and changed their name.

In 2006 Save Mart bought most of the California Albertsons, and changed the name of most of them in the bay area back to Luckys, and changed the ones in the central Valley to Save Mart.



Safeway for cuts prime beef, and the others cut select. Their pricing reflects that. They have a secure clientele, and they always have. They have been in business for a long time, and over that time their company culture has developed a long view. They pay close attention to minimize their fixed costs, but always build for the long term, realizing that a dollar saved in the short run may not be the best decision when the long view is factored in. They're innovative, they have a campus in Pleasanton CA where they invests a lot in market research, and where they train managers to do their best. They treat their managers well, and they experience very little turnover.



Albertsons were dirt baggers. They treated their managers poorly, paying them up and down the line through profit share and little else. If a manager or assistant manager is lucky they get posted to a profitable newer store and they do well enough. But many of their stores were beat up on the insides even if they had recently been remodeled to look nice on the outside. With them it was always do it on the cheap because the maintenance costs come right out of the managers wages. It was the store manager who approve or disapprove maintenance work, the poor assistant managers were locked into going for the ride.

For example I remember going into one of their stores to do the minimum lick it and split maintenance, found the compressors running with what can only be described as muck in the crankcases. I drew a sample and took it to the store manager and showed it to him. He said "you should be glad it's that nice," and he didn't approve the cost of changing it. A year later he was moved to another store and his replacement had to bear the cost of those compressors failing one by one out of his pay check. There was no incentive for that previous manager to have kept the store in good condition. And the replacement manager suffered near starvation wages until he had enough of that and quit, leaving the company with his acquired experience.

I hated going to those stores, when I walked in the assistant managers all through the store would ask me, "why are you here, again" like it was my fault. They knew my presence was reducing their pay check, and they clearly would prefer to not see me. I would say "your manager called me," it did little to reduce the feeling pouring off them that they hated to see me. If it seemed like they were being nice it was just so they could quiz me to find out if one of my coworkers had done poor work the time previous so they could blame them and dispute the bill, which would get me in trouble with my office. That's toxic, pretty soon I didn't feel like giving a damn for them.

Contrast that to Safeway where when I walked in the middle of the night they were pleased to see me, especially if my arrival was prompt. Pleased because I was there to save the day. They worked with us rather than against us. I felt like doing my best for them. That is taking the long view.



There was little difference between Albertsons and Save Mart who took their stores after that bankruptcy, the management policies were similar. When those stores changed hands, not much but the sign outside changed. They buy the cheapest products they can find, and sell it for all the market will bear.

Safeway is good, but where management is concerned Trader Joes is the best in the business, watch them grow. Costco is pretty darned good, but I would rate Safeway a wee bit better.

Walmart's management is the worst I've ever seen. Back in the managers office of those stores one can smell the human pheromone of fear, it's lingering a stench. I don't think that stench could be washed off, it's been so impregnated into the floors, ceiling and walls over the years. And it exists in every one of those stores I've ever been to. Those back offices smell like a casinos where people lose their life savings.

Albertsons? Who in the hell can afford to shop there? Same goes for Rosauers, Safeway and Yokes. Of the 4, Albertsons is the most expensive. Safeway isn't far behind.

There's no longer a Fred Meyer (Kroger) near me. The one that was, didn't own the land the store sat on. The fucktard that owned the land damn near tripled the amount of $$$ he wanted. Fred Meyer told him to stick it and closed the store. And that royally pissed me off. I shopped there. My pharmacy was there. I used the bank branch there.

I ended up moving to Albertsons' pharmacy. I rarely buy any groceries there unless they're having a big sale. Otherwise, they charge to much. A loaf of Albertsons brand of 100% Whole Wheat bread cost $1 more than at Fred Meyer for their brand of whole wheat.

A 1lb container of cottage cheese at Albertsons is $2. At WinCo, a 24oz container of cottage cheese is $2.48. I just walked down to the pharmacy and I bought 2 Gala apples, $1.99 a pound. At WinCo, they're 50¢ a pound cheaper.

At Albertsons, El Monterey frozen burritos are $3.50. They're $1 cheaper at WinCo.

I seriously don't know how in the hell Albertsons stays open with the prices they have. After Fred Meyer closed, Albertsons' business about tripled.

_________________
E pluribus unum
In God We Trust

Not that they shouldn't exist but of the dozens of auto manufacturing that are located in the south the only one to go under was Saturn. It is also the only one I know of that was a Union shop.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18

Well Glen, this should warm your heart. Boeing is closing plants in Washington (union workers) and moving those jobs to a south eastern state that's "right to work". Hundreds of jobs gone here. Why? Because the workers don't matter. Their profits matter more.

_________________
E pluribus unum
In God We Trust

Albersons stores do well where there is a enough of a Mormon population. The original founders, were Mormons and had standing in the church going way back in Utah. They also advertise and push the envelope running loss leaders to lure customers into the store.

I personally knew that fucktard who owned that Fred Meyer store, but I didn't know the fucktard who owned the land under it or leased the building to him. I don't remember his name. He owned several stores in three states. One time a store I worked on, a Bilo store in Montana was selling Kraft Miracle Whip and Mayo for about 75 cents a quart below cost as a big loss leader in the weekly ad.

He, or the manager of his store, wanted a piece of that action, so he sent his employees one by one into the store, coming to work or going home, he wasn't paying them for their time, to buy as many of those quarts as they could get away with, six or eight maybe doing it twice through different checkouts so it wouldn't get noticed, to stock his shelves.

It got noticed on a day when i was on a service call there. Petty stuff to make an extra hundred bucks. Twenty years later I'm posing about it on the wide open web. I wish I could remember his name.

i also did a couple of service calls at another of his stores, seems in my memory of it, it was a bit east of Post Falls, got stiffed on the bill.

The plant is still operating and is still a union shop. It's making GM products, and is the largest GM facility in America.

And I guess you forgot the Corvette plant in Bowling Green, KY, the only place in the world that makes Corvettes. UAW and proud of it.

I don't know if that particular Fred Meyer was owned outright or if it was owned by Kroger. When I moved my prescriptions from Walgreens to there, it took about 3 weeks and the pharmacy staff knew my face and called me by name. I'd go to pick up a prescription and didn't have to say a word. They'd see me and head over and get my order. At Savon (Albertsons) that took almost a year.

Don't know if the property there is now leased or if it was bought outright. It's now an RV dealer. There are still 3 Fred Meyer stores here (don't know if there's one on the south hill). 2 in the Valley and the one WAY out north.

Back to Albertsons. They never have enough check stands open. Those lines can get pretty long and I have a real problem standing very long. Last time I was down there, I bought a couple things. As I passed the dairy case, I saw the price on a 2lb block of Tillamook cheese. I damn near dropped every thing, $9.48. I was at WinCo a day later and the same cheese was almost $2 cheaper. Crystal Light at Albertsons is $3.50, at WinCo it's $2.28.

_________________
E pluribus unum
In God We Trust

They do that on purpose, closing a lane if the lines get to short. Studies show if a store wants to style themselves as cost cutters, and if they make the customer wait in a checkout lane, the customer walks away feeling like they got a better deal.

Costco plays that game to the hilt. Albertsons are amateurs at it.

Trader Joe's are smarter about it, they build it in, they don't build enough checkout lanes in the first place. That way they don't get criticized for having some closed when the lines start stretching half way back across the store.

My experience with Costco - which is fairly extensive - is that a long line doesn't matter, because you're done and out of there in mere minutes anyway. They always have two people - a checker and a person handling the cart. The big stuff they have so the checker can quickly scan the items, then they box up the smaller items for you. A line that would take you ten minutes at a grocery store takes you two at Costco.

The 'quick' checkout will have 10 people in line. The other one that's open, will have 5 cart loads in line. I'm talking a full cart, not just a few items.

_________________
E pluribus unum
In God We Trust

The union didn't put Saturn under. Americas indifference and GM mismanagement did.

The original concept (there was actually three concepts. A reliable compact, Hassle free buying, and a worker friendly atmosphere on the line.) of Saturn was a result of the oil embargo some years before. It was when we realized the U.S. did not make a fuel efficient car. Sure we had Vegas's, Pinto's and shit, but they were tin boxes and you were lucky to get a hundred thousand miles out of them before they turned to shit. Nothing like the Honda's, Toyota's and foreign imports. So to compete with them GM made a decent move, created Saturn, and cut it loose. It was still technically GM but they wanted a fresh ideas from outside the box which more or less meant Saturn did not have to answer to GM. Saturn ran with it and created the SL 1 and 2. They did a fairly decent job of it and with the gas prices what they were back then it created a following. By the time the second generation improvements of SL's came out in 96 their foot was solidly in the door and they were actually getting close to making a car that could compete with Honda. That's when things started to go to hell. American indifference. Gas prices went back down and Hummer sales shot back up. Saturn sales of the compact SL's dropped of. Since it was their only model and most everyone want bigger rides again Saturn went off course and created the L series. Problem was, all the American manufacture's had been making reliable midsize's for quite sometime. So, the L's never really took off and they lost sight of improving the SL's, which was the original concept to begin with.
It was about that time gas became even cheaper and Saturn sales more or less flattened out. Everyone wanted two Hummers now and a muscle car to boot. It was about this time the real mistake was made. Because of the flat sales GM folded them back in thinking they would fix this. But, instead of improving the original concept, they started doing what the industry did best. They spit out a half dozen platforms with hundreds of confusing options with little or no thought to the original concept, a good compact car. By the time they refocused there and decided to upgrade the SL's it was to little to late. The ion was spit out by corporate in it's fucked up fashion and it was a piece of shit to boot. While that didn't completely seal Saturn's fate , the recession did. In reorganizing the auto industry the powers that be decided to shut her down. Why? Saturn sales had been flat for sometime and they didn't make anything GM wasn't already making so why keep it around. It didn't help that most of corporate that had hated the concept and the drain of money from GM finally gained power. Sad that. It was a wonderful concept.


Now, none of that touched on the other end of the concept, labor. Yes, the worker friendly atmosphere between management and the line scared the hell out of the union. And, while i'll admit the union may not have handled that very well, they were no where's near the primary cause of Saturn''s death.

_________________
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. - Will Rogers

It's not the outlawing of unions, though. The OP inquired as to the outlawing of unions.

_________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those who are now possible remain possible.

I think you accurately nailed this thread, though. It pretty much took off on a tangent early on.

_________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those who are now possible remain possible.

Fishing expedition, using the method of dragging the line behind the boat. You know--trolling. Ya, that would explain this thread.

Collective bargaining is ensconced in legal precedent, and neither the NRA nor the Chamber of Commerce involve collective employment bargaining, which falls under Master Servant contract law, not laws of association. So yeah--literally and figuratively, this topic has gone 'way off on a tangent deep into left field.

_________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those who are now possible remain possible.

This thread was lost deep in the murky depths of the memory hole.

I find it odd that you chose to swim down there to recover GoUnion's line and hook which was tangled on my posts in the murky depths of that memory hole...

Unless,,, are you planning on using that fishing gear to do some creative fishing of your own?

Interesting bait, early 19 century British law seasoned with some [not] Aristotle.

....edited to remove to a later response to a subsequent post...

_________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those who are now possible remain possible.

I discussed the pitfalls of stereotyping unions with you a few days ago. The stereotype "although unions have become a necessity, they are also their own worst enemy," is not valid even if you do come up with two valid examples. In this case your examples are poor examples.

Both the police and teachers have to work under political bosses, which leave the rank and file working in an insecure and unstable working environment, subject to whims and passing ideological divides. There are a whole array of unions involved who have organized these workers from place to place. No blanket statement can cover that.

I have a family member who is a teacher organized under the Teamsters. She loves her union. She supports it, and it supports her. I expect you could find a counterexample. I could. We could match example for example until night fall, and still not have advanced a stereotyped point into the realm of it being a valid point going either way.

An individual union may be criticized for merit as individual case. But to say "Unionists believe, ... ."!?! That's nonsense.

You are out of order to declare by fiat that my personal experiences are invalid, as you are to invalidate personal experiences as stereotypes, which they are not without the unions making them so. They aren't. What you exhibit by attempting to invalidate my or anybody else's personal experiences illustrate vividly how unions have lost the ability to persuade those who aren't members to join a union, and that pomposity has long, deep roots causing union blindness to the fact that their arrogance both exists and puts off growing its membership. When you put off nonunion workers like, say, people working their way through college right out of high school, you remain surprised that these "scabs" will become the voters who support the Right To Work laws. They DO have a right to work without being bullied by arrogant union leadership. Unions have become arrogant bullies, not persuasive organizations, and within this thread lies several cases in point. Further, unions aren't persuasive to those they seek to add to their ranks because like the people here, they can't come up with actual reasons. It's belief-only faith-based arrogant bullying with lack of understanding as to why so many workers use their votes to vote in favor of what the union calls against their best interests.

Reality is that they're voting for the lesser of two evils. In terms of teachers unions, they're unpersuasive to the parents of the kids they teach, and parents are voters, too.

_________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those who are now possible remain possible.

You are out of order to have removed the post I was responding to after I made my post, the post where I discussed the stereotyping.

Which you are now stating I was out of line to have done. It leaves me high and dry insofar as being able to point to it to discuss the matter.

So I'm not going to discuss it with you further. Instead I'm going to throw your opinion in the shitter.

Nice try, but my response beat your subsequent post by seconds, so you weren't responding to the post I deleted, which is why I deleted it. Your bad for not hitting the Quote key, silly. That's what it's there for. But you couldn't have hit the quote key on my post because you didn't get a chance to read it, mine being posted a split second before you posted yours.

That, and you need an excuse to get out of my cornering you on the matter at hand. PWNED.

Again--my experiences aren't stereotypes, they're experiences, so that makes you dishonest twice over.

_________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those who are now possible remain possible.

Check the timestamps. I posted my response to your post at 10:11 am. You deleted, "....edited to remove to a later response to a subsequent post..." at 10:32 am.

Your response did not beat my subsequent post by seconds, it was 21 minutes later. You wrote this:

"Nice try, but my response beat your subsequent post by seconds, so you weren't responding to the post I deleted, which is why I deleted it."

How does that work you wrote, "Nice try, but my response beat your subsequent post by seconds," however in the same sentence you said, "which is why I deleted it."

If your responce beat my subsequent post by seconds, how did you know about it such that you could say, "which is why I deleted it."

You pulled a shitty, and then you say "Your bad for not hitting the Quote key, silly."

And then you gp on to say "But you couldn't have hit the quote key on my post because you didn't get a chance to read it, mine being posted a split second before you posted yours."

That is nutty, I was responding to something.

You piss down my leg and tell me it is raining. The proof that you have lied to me is in your post.

I combined responses and you call that pulling a shitty. Pretty shitty of you, actually.

_________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those who are now possible remain possible.

Here's your post, quoted.


My response remains:


Deal with it. But you'd prefer not to--I get it.

_________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those who are now possible remain possible.